Tag: Parking Garage

Posted on by — 23 Comments

Ridgewood Mayor Aronsohn Attempting to Divert attention from the Real Issues

ridgewood village manager

Paul,

It has been a while since this group has communicated – I hope everyone is doing well.  I received your email below and wanted to respond.

I respect Roberta. I think she has done a great job overall managing this Village.  It’s not an easy job by any means.  I personally know Roberta…she is a good neighbor and I like to consider her as a friend.  She is smart, quick, effective – I respect her and admire her and from what I have heard she has done a better job of executing than previous VMs.  However, I was shocked to see the full page ad in the news.  I was even more shocked when I read your email and was targeted with a mass email chain from someone in my neighborhood (how she got my personal email is quite a mystery).  I guess I am confused…why are we making this election about her or any village staff? Shouldn’t the election be about the issues at hand – high density housing, doubling the size of Valley hospital in the middle of a residential area? When did we turn this election into village hall staffing?  You work for a corporation so you know very well that a new boss is entitled to evaluate the existing talent pool. So why is this even a concern? No company will hesitate to bring in the right boss for fear of cleaning up the existing talent pool.  We shouldn’t either.

We have to remember, this election isn’t about any Village Hall staff.  It’s about whether we trust the people we elect to represent the town fairly and responsibly.  It’s about where they stand on the issues that we each find important to our families, to our property values, to our future, to our way of life.

It saddens me that you are trying to turn this campaign around and divert the attention away from the true issues.  Not to mention make up deceitful lies.  Not one candidate has made any statement about Roberta and her role.  It’s simply not part of this election, nor should it be.  It’s a non issue.  It saddens me that we are not able to campaign with dignity and respect for one another.  I hope that changes.

Respectfully,

Bonita Shimpfky

———- Forwarded message ———
From: Paul Aronsohn <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, May 6, 2016, 9:04 PM
Subject: Vote for Brooks, Weitz and Willett
To: <[email protected]>

Dear Neighbor,

Last week, I endorsed council candidates Rich Brooks, Evan Weitz and Janice Willett in a letter-to-the-editor, noting that they have solid experience, uncompromising integrity/ethics and a proven commitment to Ridgewood.  I also noted that they are right on issues important to me, such as the budget, the parking deck, the special needs community and the Village Manager.

This week, several additional community leaders – past and present – have also endorsed Rich, Evan and Janice – community leaders who have helped shape Ridgewood’s traditions, while moving Ridgewood forward.  And importantly, a group of residents took out a full-page ad in the Ridgewood News today, noting that “only 3 candidates are committed to keeping Roberta Sonenfeld as Village Manager – Rich Brooks, Evan Weitz and Janice Willett.”

Please see the attached list of endorsements and the full-page ad.

Needless to say, many of us believe that this year’s election is especially important, and as explained by the Ridgewood News Editorial Board, every vote matters.  Remember, in 2012, there was a difference of only 15 votes between the 3rd and 4th placed candidates.

If you have any questions, about this year’s election, please feel free to email me.  If you want to learn more about Rich, Evan and Janice — and their positive, inclusive vision for Ridgewood — please visit their website – www.Ridgewood2020.com.

Thank you for your consideration.  Thank you for voting on Tuesday.

Best,
Paul

Posted on by — 16 Comments

Village manager Roberta Sonefield claims the garage can be vacant, and we can still pay for it with the street parking revenue

parking_enforcement_theridgewoodblog

April 16,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, From “Take Back Ridgewood” Facebook page the  Village manager Roberta Sonefield claims the garage can be vacant, and we can still pay for it with the street parking revenue. Lets build a 4 level garage instead of 5 levels. The Village Manager herself is confirming it this short video.

Which begs the question to anyone who will ever pay it, why increase the meter rates…? If she’s so sure. Why put a further burden on the CBD and potential shoppers. Video courtesy Gail McLaughlin McCarthy  https://www.tubechop.com/watch/7885900

Posted on by — 9 Comments

Ridgewood News controversial edit of “Letter to the editor” Sparks Furor

BCIA petition OLMC

file photo by Boyd Loving

April 9,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, The Ridgewood News controversial edit of “Letter to the editor” sparks further controversy on Hudson Garage and  a the referendum at next general election.

Ridgewood News letter: In support of the petition :
https://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-letters-to-the-editor/ridgewood-news-letter-in-support-of-the-petition-1.1540981

According to Gail McLaughlin McCarthy  ,”They edited. We gave them our attorneys contact info and they chose not to call them to fact check. ridiculous. The petition will be submitted April 12. We are confident that if a special election is called, it is because the council majority chooses to spend more money. On top of the $600,000.00 already spent according to Gwenn.

Here is the letter we actually submitted, before the editors got hold of it. We supplied backup of all statements, yet they still edited.

12973146 10209148716542069 4874713208035257547 o

Posted on by — 18 Comments

Ridgewood Financial Advisory Committee sends out Erroneous Email

hudson Garage in feet ridgewood
photo by Saurabh Dani
March 26,2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, , a member of Financial Advisory Committee sent out a mass email. It says “Last Wednesday the Village Council unanimously approved funding a parking garage on Hudson Street. It will be funded by Ridgewood (not the county), and it reflects an updated design that seeks to address concerns of residents, including removing a level.”This is just not true. Plan D and Plan A have

SAME number of stories, same number of levels. Plan D is only couple of feet lower than plan A, because it removes the cantilever, so a supporting beam of somewhere between 2-3 feet was removed.

Huge lie in first paragraph!  “including removing a level”

Another lie in 2nd paragraph. This petition will have binding referendum question on November ballot. That will cost ZERO. No special election with this petition.

If you received that email, please check the facts yourself before believing it.Unfortunately, there is too much misinformation being spread from some council members, village officials and members of FAC / HPC etc.

Lets ask them to provide Ridgewood residents correct facts on size and street encroachment, and if residents still want to proceed without changes, it’s fine, but please don’t provide incorrect information.

How does someone in a position of authority get away with sending this?

Friends —

Last Wednesday the Village Council unanimously approved funding a parking garage on Hudson Street. It will be funded by Ridgewood (not the county), and it reflects an updated design that seeks to address concerns of residents, including removing a level.

Now, the group that opposed funding the garage through Bergen County is seeking to oppose this vote, even though the issues that arose through county funding no longer apply. They want an even smaller garage. As opposed to standing behind a reasonable compromise, they want to stop progress at all costs. They are asking residents to sign a petition to put the issue to a special referendum, which will create further delays and cost the Village about $45,000 to implement through a special election. Of course, a significant majority of Village residents already voted to support a garage in a special referendum last year.

I am a member of the Ridgewood Financial Advisory Committee, and we analyzed the funding model for the garage. We recognize that a taller garage has aesthetic implications. Financially, however, a larger garage is more fiscally sound — more spaces create more revenue, and the marginal cost of each level is much lower than building the base of the structure. That’s why compromise is necessary and appropriate. I believe the current compromise is the best path forward for the Village.

Please don’t sign the petition. Tell your friends not to sign the petition Forward them this email. The group supporting the petition will be in Van Neste Square today seeking signatures — show up and tell them you support progress for Ridgewood.

Thanks.

Rich Cundiff

Posted on by — 13 Comments

Support us in requesting the council to consider a garage that’s the right size for that lot

hudson parking garage ridgewood
RIDGEWOOD RESIDENTS
WE NEED YOUR SIGNATURES!

 

Support us in requesting the council to consider
a garage that’s the right size for that lot
The currently proposed garage at Hudson Street
is TOO BIG
Text any of the circulators listed below
and we can give you an address to stop by to sign.
    • Near Van Neste Square, Saturday 11-4. Look for Orange Baloons.
    • Lorraine Reynolds, please call/text 201-264-8151 – Friday, March 25th -10AM-4PM
    • Melanie McWilliams, please call/text 201-675-8937.
    • Saurabh Dani, please call/text 973-903-5361.
    • Ellen McNamara, please call/text 201-874-0966.
    • Jacqueline Hone, please call/text 201-377-8556.
The petition seeks to protest Ordinance 3521 with the following ballot question:
Shall Ordinance No. 3521 authorizing the Council of the Village of Ridgewood
to issue $11,500,000 bonds or notes to finance the cost of constructing the
Hudson Street Parking Deck, currently contemplated as a 4 story, 5 level
Parking Deck, be ratified?Do you know the difference in height between Option A and Design D?
It’s 2ft 6in. Would you call that a compromise?
We don’t.The in house funding for the parking garage passed 5-0 on 23rd, which is great. Everyone wants the garage funded in house.
Many people who want the garage, and want to fund in house, believe it’s just 2 tall, and should come down a level.
Why a petition to repeal an ordinance that we really want?
Because this petition will put funding on hold (for a short time),
it will allow the 5 council members to talk compromise (something three of them have been unwilling to do).
They have a choice, they can decide to seriously sit down at the compromise table, and see if 1 level lower will work
(all the numbers point to a yes, since any size garage relies heavily on the parking meter revenues).
If it’s agreed to lowering it 1 story to 3 stories, 4 levels, the petition will be withdrawn,
& we move forward immediately with a 3 story 4 level parking garage funded in house.So, it basically comes down to this:

If you’d rather see:
design D with 3 stories, 4 levels, approx 37ft building height & 52ft towers- approx 260 spaces- then you should sign the petition
If you are happy with the current design D of 4 stories, 5 levels, 46ft 8in building height & 60ft 10in towers- 325 spaces- then you should not sign the petition

You must be a registered voter residing in the Village of Ridgewood to sign the petition.

LOOK FOR THE ORANGE BALLOONS
FOR MORE INFORMATION
EMAIL [email protected]
CALL or text 201-264-8151
Visit: https://goo.gl/forms/KpPtDY2We9
Posted on by — 3 Comments

Ramon Hache , “I hope the Ridgewood Council will listen to the input from residents and will decide on responsible development that will preserve the character of our town while improving traffic safety

Ramon Hache ridgewood NJ

march 23,2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, Ridgewood Council candidate Ramon Hache also shared his feeling on the high density meeting tonight , “I think tonight’s meeting is unfair to residents. There are two major decisions on the agenda tonight. Having two major topics on the same agenda will cause the meeting to go until early Thursday. The issues should have been split onto two agendas.”
First Ramon commented on the Hudson Garage ,”I hope the Council will vote to bond the garage ourselves. The newest design option, although not perfect, represents a compromise between residents and the Council.  The original proposed size and footprint of the garage were simply too large.”

Then Ramon followed up on the high density housing, “The Council will vote on the proposed housing density of 35 UPA.  I understand the need to develop the proposed sites but I would like to see mixed use, and a density of between 20 and 24 units per acre, more in line with the total average throughout the CBD. Although the recent study by BFJ suggest there would be minimal to no impact to the schools, Ridgewood is known for its schools and exceptional educational programs for special needs children. Therefore I would be cautious to rely on the student enrollment projections alone, which did not take into account the higher cost of special needs programs.
Ideally, I would rather see us approve one of these zoning changes first, to see how it goes.  We would get real-world data while providing a good ratable which we need to finance the things we need and to stabilize property taxes.”

Ramon emphisized, ” These are very important issues that will have an enduring impact on the future of our community. I encourage residents to attend the meeting. I hope the Council will listen to the input from residents and will decide on responsible development that will preserve the character of our town while improving traffic safety.”

Posted on by — 22 Comments

Ridgewood Taxpayers Still fighting for basic Information on Hudson Street Garage Design

Hudson_Street garage ridgewood
photo courtesy of Saurabh Dani
March 14,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood Nj  Many Ridgewood residents went to the council meetings and asked exactly “How Much” does the garage encroach into the street. We had tried to look at some smaller images of the plan in the traffic report’s appendices and tried to figure it out, as the information was not available anywhere on the village web site and we were not getting an answer in the council meetings.

The village manager recently responded to a post on Facebook saying the previous design was 18 feet more than plan D. So plan A was encroaching 23 FEET, not 12 feet which we had assumed. 23 feet encroachment in plan A?? Was that a sincere starting point where we claim a ‘compromise’.

23 feet is 23 feet , however you measure it . The point is the only way anyone found out this dimension was when another option became more attractive then a previous one. Why do the taxpayers, who are going to guarantee this bond, have to go through hoops to find out this basic information?

Posted on by — 8 Comments

The Future of Ridgewood: Hoboken police chief ‘disturbed’ after 15 arrested at annual Lepre-Con bar crawl

Clock CBD

By Dan Ivers | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
on March 06, 2016 at 5:59 PM, updated March 07, 2016 at 7:24 AM

HOBOKEN – Police Chief Ken Ferrante is speaking out after 15 people were arrested and dozens of others ticketed after this year’s annual Lepre-Con bar crawl.

In a statement, the chief said he was “disturbed” by what he called repeated issues with revelers at the St. Patrick’s Day-themed event, sponsored by a private promoter and local watering holes.

Arrests this year increased by four over 2015, and Ferrante specifically cited the arrest of a former college football player for allegedly breaking a city officer’s ribs and dislocating another’s shoulder.

“I will not tolerate having any of our officers injured, for the purposes of a few to make a financial profit at the expense of our residents, and for the purposes of promoting deviant behavior attached to various holidays, which results in citizens and officers being hospitalized!” he said.

https://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2016/03/hoboken_police_chief_disturbed_after_15_arrested_a.html?ath=9c46bfc08d76232bb5a5e00eeaf0bfa2#cmpid=nsltr_stryheadline

Posted on by — 6 Comments

Pfunds Folly known as Ordinance No. 3066 at the Crux of the Over development Problem in Ridgewood

pfund_092812_rn_tif_

March 4, 2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood Nj , Pfund’s folly resurfaces once again to haunt the Village of Ridgewood . We have former Mayor and now appointed local judge Pfund to thank.

Without Ordinance 3066, passed purposely in July 2007 when many residents were down the shore, applications to amend the Master Plan would never have even been considered. Then the developers used an old anchoring by applying for 50 units, only to say they’d “compromised” down to 35.

It is clear to most residents that we need to stop the madness , Village residents need to focus on repeal Ordinance No. 3066 which allows these incongruous projects. No other town in New Jersey has this ordinance which was initially passed to aid the Valley Hospital development.

“Ordinance No. 3066, which sets forth the fees and processes involved in applying for an amendment to the master plan or development regulations, was originally passed in July 2007. The ordinance has become the subject of controversy as many believe it enabled the multiple master plan amendment applications that have dominated the agenda at Planning Board meetings.” https://theridgewoodblog.net/ridgewood-making-changes-to-controversial-ordinance-no-3066-known-by-many-as-pfunds-folly/

1936320 10153908785629534 2582029390383576073 n

Developers then seized the opportunity to propose projects which previously would have been summarily rejected without this ordinance. Essentially if the ordinance is not repealed any “for sale” or “for lease” sign anywhere in town can also include the phrase “All uses considered.” .“More specifically, the law – Ordinance No. 3066 – makes formal the process and fees charged to any interested party should they petition the Planning Board or Village Council for a change.

The ordinance has been the topic of much debate over recent months as the Planning Board has heard back-to-back applications for amendments to the master plan, first from The Valley Hospital and currently from three housing developers seeking to put high-density housing in the Central Business District (CBD).”  https://theridgewoodblog.net/urbanization-ridgewood-ordinance-on-master-plan-amendments-at-center-of-debate/

This gives a huge loophole to developers looking to push massive over development on Ridgewood like the current high density housing . Its is time to close the loophole.

Posted on by — 11 Comments

Ridgewood moves to locally finance construction of parking garage

Village Council Meeting2

photo by Boyd Loving

BY STEVE JANOSKI
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD

RIDGEWOOD — The Village Council voted unanimously Wednesday night to introduce an ordinance allowing Ridgewood to bond for a new municipal parking garage on its own, despite recent assurances from Bergen County that it would provide the financing.

The ordinance, up for a second hearing and vote of adoption on March 23, would authorize the issuing of $11.5 million in municipal bonds to fund construction of a four-story parking deck on the corner of Hudson and South Broad streets.

Councilwoman Susan Knudsen, who’d voted against a similar $12.3-million ordinance in early January, said she was voting in favor of local bonding with the understanding the council was “going to look at some redesign options” for the proposed 325-vehicle garage, which some residents have called too large for the proposed site.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/ridgewood-moves-to-locally-finance-construction-of-parking-garage-1.1521132

Posted on by — 9 Comments

Ridgewood News, article to try to pressure Mike Sedon and Susan Knudsen to vote for bonding the garage through Ridgewood.

Reading_theridgewood_news_theridgewoodblog

All — On page 3 of the Ridgewood News, there was an article to try to pressure Mike Sedon and Susan Knudsen to vote for bonding the garage through Ridgewood. If you are skeptical of the viability of the proposed garage, please send Mike and Susan an email to let them know to stay firm on their vote and allow the referendum on the BCIA to go forward. Here’s what I sent to them:

Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 4:23 PM
To: ‘[email protected]’; ‘[email protected]’
Cc: ‘[email protected]’; ‘[email protected]’; ‘[email protected]’
Subject: garage

Susan and Michael,

With regards to the full page ad in the Ridgewood News today, I urge you to maintain your position on the bonding of the proposed garage.

I do not believe that a garage in that location will cover its costs and the taxpayers are going to wind up funding it. There is simply not enough demand for parking at the proposed location. There are usually many spots open right across the street. I’d support a smaller structure located more centrally and I know a lot of my fellow residents would too.

Please stay the course and know that most of the residents who voted in support of a garage did not know any specific information at that time therefore there is NO MANDATE to build anything at this time.

Feel free to contact me via email or at 201-445-8222.

Regards,
Derek Schnure

Posted on by — 31 Comments

The people of Ridgewood deserve better

BCIA petition OLMC

Mr. Aronsohn – 

 
In response to your email circulating Sunday afternoon; I was not on the list of recipients, but a friend forwarded it to me.  You sent it to a selected list of “friends/neighbors,” yet you did so by blind cc.  Therefore no one who received it knows who else got it.  How strange.
 
Why would you send such an announcement to a selected, secret group of residents?  Isn’t your suggestion of reintroducing the bond ordinance one that should be shared with ALL residents, not just a few?   And more importantly, why wouldn’t this be suggested at an Open Public Meeting, with all five of our elected officials present, rather than in an email of this sort?   I am baffled by your choices here.
 
I am one of the petitioners, as you are well aware.  In fact, this morning I waved to you, called out and invited you to cross the street when you were watching us from the corner of Prospect and Hudson, but you opted to ignore my invitation and walk away without even waving back.  As one of the petitioners, I am shocked to be characterized by you as participating in an initiative that is “fueled, in part, by misinformation and outright lies.”  Why didn’t you cross the street and talk to us, or for that matter why didn’t you cross Maple Avenue yesterday when you were in the King’s parking lot watching us in the Elks Club?  Indeed, in the interest of the civil discourse that you espouse so frequently, an actual conversation with us would have gone a long way.  You would have learned, first-hand, that we are not fueled by misinformation and outright lies.  We are being scrupulously accurate and honest in our endeavor.
 
Your suggestion that “The people of Ridgewood deserve better” is completely insulting.  We ARE the people of Ridgewood; do you envision that all of us are somehow invaders from another town?  As you have surely witnessed from your various observation posts in the last two days, we are not only the people of Ridgewood, but we are a large number or the people of Ridgewood. We are exercising our rights under the law, doing so pleasantly, appropriately, respectfully, and with accurate information.  We are putting in long hours, in freezing temperatures and in the rain, and all for one common reason – because we care about Ridgewood.  
 
How disappointing that such an unprofessional and potentially slanderous letter was sent by you in your official capacity.
 
Thank you,
 
Anne Loving,
Ridgewood Resident
Posted on by — 9 Comments

Reader says I voted YES on the November referendum and am furious at the way the Council Majority is trying to shove this huge garage through by having the county bond it

Hudson Street Parking Garage

I am one of the petitioners and I can tell you that many who have signed for me state categorically that they voted YES on the November referendum and are furious at the way the Council Majority is trying to shove this huge garage through by having the county bond it.

No one is happy with the County bonding it. They want a garage, almost everyone wants a garage, but they want a reasonable size and they want Ridgewood to issue the bond. And to answer your snarky suggestion, we are not collecting email addresses. Leave that level of underhandedness to those who use private email lists such as CHURCH GROUP lists to disseminate their campaign information. (yes, you know who you are).

Stop making the claim that 65% voted for the plan. Watch this to see what 65% knew before the vote –https://www.tubechop.com/watch/7623263

Posted on by — 7 Comments

Ridgewood Town Garage Site vs. Hudson Street Garage

town_garage_theridgewoodblog

Dear Village Officials,  I understand ” the train has left the station ” on the Garage at the Hudson Street site but I would like to state a brief case as to why this is not the best scenario for Ridgewood at the present time.

We have a contaminated site at the Town Garage site and the village owned properties abutting it. Hydrolic and diesel fuel from old underground tanks is seeping into the ground and could be affecting our ground water in the area.  I know that it is being monitored and that the DEP targeted this area for remediation at least 10 years ago. In 2002, a village conducted study saw the Town Garage site as a better fit for a municipal garage than Hudson Street for various reasons.
I believe the village tried to gain the property via eminent domain in 2009 but that failed.  I understand that you have asked our village attorney to look into the Abandoned Property ordinance.  The owners of that site are up to date on taxes but the property continues to be a threat to the environment.  I believe that this property should be acquired by the village, the site cleaned up and  responsible development of the property including a garage should take place.

You are voting on an ordinance this evening to bond 12.3 million dollars through the BCIA.  Our first priority should be the acquisition of the Town Garage site and the remediation of that property as soon as possible.  If a garage is built there, it would be used by employees, diners sand shoppers as well as commuters as it is more centrally located.  The Hudson Street area could be repaved and reconfigured to maximize parking spaces and also for minimal costs made more aesthetically pleasing.  I want what is best for the village and right now it is to clean up the toxic site in our downtown area.

Sincerely,
Linda Mc Namara
Posted on by — 21 Comments

Stay tuned for tonight’s Ridgewood Council meeting

garage new design

 

Dear Friends and Neighbors,

Village Hall meeting at 8pm, during the first public statement there will be an announcement about what actions you can take if the Village Council votes in favor of bonding the proposed garage through the County. So, whether you can come out to the meeting or watch at home – stay tuned.

For those who are just getting up to speed, here’s what’s happening:
The attached new garage proposal diagram just appeared in the lobby of Village Hall. I don’t know about you, but I never imagined it would be this HUGE, let alone that, even with all the prior resident outrage, it still does not fit the municipal lot size.
Tonight our Village Council will be voting on going to the County for a $12,300,000 bond. This is going to take away our control of the process. It is going to cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars more to do this than to bond ourselves. Bonding through the County stipulates the same parking rates for everyone using it. Because of this, it will become a commuter garage for other towns to use and fill up.
Personally, I am not against a parking garage. Our town needs more parking solutions. Bonding through the County, unfortunately, isn’t the way to go.
Let’s keep in control of our wonderful town. Stay tuned for tonight’s meeting.

Sincerely,

Dana